Hi Lee,
Thanks for answering all my mails, but I see you send on the list only
the one where you disagree. Have you done this purposefully? Can I
quote some piece of the mail you did not send on the list? I will
answer asap.
Also, for this one, I did not intend to insult you. Sorry if it looks
like that,
Bruno
Le 26-juil.-05, à 23:31, Lee Corbin a écrit :
> Bruno writes
>
>>> Look, it's VERY simple: take as a first baby-step the notion
>>> that the 19th century idea of a cosmos is basically true, and
>>> then add just the Big Bang. What we then have is a universe
>>> that operates under physical laws. So far---you'll readily
>>> agree---this is *very* simple conceptually.
>>>
>>> Next, look at this picture after 14.7 billion years. Guess
>>> what has evolved? Finally, there is intelligence and there
>>> are entities who can *perceive* all this grandeur.
>>>
>>> So, don't forget which came first. Not people. Not perceptions.
>>> Not ideas. Not dich an sich. Not 1st person. Not 3rd person.
>>> NOT ANY OF THIS NONSENSE. Keep to the basics and we *perhaps*
>>> will have a chance to understand what is going on.
>>
>>
>> But both the quantum facts, and then just the comp hyp are
>> incompatible
>> with that type of naive realism.
>
> At this level of discourse, dear Bruno, I don't give a _______
> for your *hypothesis*.
>
> Moreover, please google for "naive realism". You'll find that this
> is the world view of children who have *no* idea of the processes
> by which their brains are embedded in physical reality.
>
> Since no one claims to be a naive realist, this rises to the level
> of insult.
>
> But then, I'm not too surprised that the most *basic* understanding
> of our world has been forgotten by some who deal everyday with only
> the most high level abstractions.
>
> Lee
>
>
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Wed Jul 27 2005 - 06:48:02 PDT